Before conception - shared by
Eastern
perspectives - Jer1:4 ("...before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
...")

After conception -

Torah states that if in the
course of an altercation with a third party, a person causes a woman so
that she has a miscarriage, but she lives, then the man who injured her
shall be fined whatever amount the woman's husband shall demand, and as
the judges approve. But if any harm comes to the woman and she dies,
he shall be executed. Ex 21:22-23 TLB [fined vs executed?]

Torah (Genesis 2:7) states
that life begins at first breath, but babies are not valued in census
until they are a month old (Numbers 3:40; Leviticus 27:6).

Finally, some Jewish perspectives found (not universal, I'm
sure)

While abortion of fetuses is a grave offense, it is difficult to
justify prohibiting the use of life-saving tissue from aborted fetuses
for fear of encouraging or condoning abortion. Otherwise there may
ensue avoidable death of additional human beings.

No moral status to an embryo before forty days of gestation.
Furthermore, uterine implantation of an embryo… is required to create
moral status.

In light of Judaism’s moral and religious mandate to save human
life and alleviate human suffering, supporting the proposed [embryonic
stem cell research enabling] legislation can be considered not only
praiseworthy, but even a Jewish moral and religious duty.”

And finally a question from me, how should we regard a fetus derived
from a terminated ectopic pregnancy? What is the best future for its
potentialities?

JimA [Friend of ASA]

George Murphy wrote:

Sure, if you assume that whatever is
necessary for the fullness of human nature is formed at conception then
rational capacities are formed, & by virtue of our assumption of
the necessity of the brain for rational thought, the brain begins to
form then. A perfect example of circular reasoning.

Alright - then when does the brain 'begin to form'? Because by my
sights, that marker happens to be conception. That's precisely where it
'begins to form' as nature (whether conceived the old fashioned way, or
by similar-enough scientific meddling) takes its course. Later on it's
simply further along the process of formation.

I have to wonder.. if it's not 'a person' - presumably not a child
either, since children are persons - what is it? Would someone be
justified in calling it a parasite? Nothing more than a blob of cells?
A growth, malignant or benign, depending on one's subjective view?

And heya Preston,

Again, 'supernatural' or 'immaterial' does not go away just because
there's a dependence on the physical. Aquinas and many others, in past
and present, did not believe this. Likely even Descartes didn't believe
this. Lewis was not reacting to the idea that human thought and mind
may have some (very important) basis in the physical. It was the idea
that minds are nothing but the material (particularly, I think, the
classical material/'mechanist' view of material), unguided and
unintended in any ultimate sense, that he reacted most strongly
against. As for computers, the basic concept isn't all that different
from Leibniz's mill - and, as impressive as computers are even
nowadays, making them the 'basis for reason' in an exclusive sense is
fraught with problems. And very often the examples sound compelling
because unspoken commitments to the immaterial are snuck in through the
back door. (John Searle's particularly known for highlighting this, but
others do so as well.) I think Lewis could have easily accepted the
idea that the mind has very important and necessary physical bases, but
is more than the physical. Then again, probably the only ones who
couldn't would be the thoroughgoing physicalists.

And no, I don't think Lewis had any problem with modern science.
Probably modern philosophy that often championed (and in the process,
heavily abused) science. Particularly since Lewis was around at the
height of some considerable abuses of science in the service of
aggressive philosophy.

I would be willing to accept
the claim that a functioning brain is a necessary but not sufficient
condition for thought. That is a sufficient basis for an argument that
before the brain begins to form an embryo is not rational, and
therefore not a person, to proceed.

I'm pretty sure C. S. Lewis was aware of the
great scientific discovery that is 'drinking booze has a noticeable
effect on subjective experience and reasoning.' More often, the
scientifically inclined just don't know enough philosophy on the point.

Moreover, the idea that dualists of all varieties (or even most) don't
see the brain as necessary for many/most mental operations doesn't ring
true. Hylemorphic dualists would emphatically disagree. As would, I
believe, very many dualists of cartesian, property, emergentist, and
other varieties. A functioning brain could be a necessary but not
sufficient requirement for thought, and 'the classical physical can do
it all!' position is fraught with problems, some of which make the "but
what about alcohol?" objection pale in comparison.

It may depend on your definition of "think." Can computers "think?"
They do make decisions. They can even "appear" to be sentient. It may
be possible to have a conversation with a computer (over the internet)
and not even realize it is not a real person.

...Bernie

'm articulating this well...)

There's a flip side to this. Read Dilbert today. Dilbert bemoans the
fact that his boss keeps failing the Turing test. When our reason goes
bad, do we cease to be human? Is God taking a coffee break? :)

Does Moorad think (by whatever mechanism) that the function of the
brain is not necessary for reason? Then why do we get more and more
confused as the alcohol concentration in the brain increases? I love
C.S. Lewis, but I think he just didn't know enough science on the point.
Preston

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Mar 17 19:35:10 2009